THIS is with reference to the article ‘Incomplete justice’ (March 9). The recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling on the presi- dential reference concerning Zulfikar Ali Bhutto murder case signifies a landmark moment in Pakistan’s legal sphere.

The SC confronted a flawed verdict, and courageously acknowledged past injustices inflicted upon Bhutto. While seeking to rectify a historical wrong, the apex court implicitly recognised the collusion between the judiciary and the authoritarian regime in question.

Moreover, the court’s commitment to duty was evident in its acknowledgment of the unfairness surrounding the Bhutto trial. While unable to undo what was done more than four decades ago, the SC did delegitimise it on grounds of procedural flaws.

However, concerns linger regarding the court ruling’s relevance in terms of addressing contemporary cases of political victimisation and selective justice. The public scrutiny underscores the need for consistent application of the principle of fairness, particularly in cases involving current political figures.

The SC’s mandate to decide ‘without fear or favour’ necessitates introspec-tion on perceptions of selective justice, including recent contentious judgments. Only by addressing these concerns can the judiciary uphold its credibility and ensure justice for all citizens. Failure to do so risks undermining public trust, and rendering the Bhutto ruling incomplete in the eyes of the people of Pakistan.

Gulab Umid
Turbat

Published in Dawn, April 5th, 2024